Inside the Current Issue

Academic Freedom Group Finds 'Climate of Fear' at Hunter

The following are excerpts from the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Academic Freedom at Hunter College, dated 14 December 2005. The complete text is available online at www.hunter.cuny.edu/senate.

On December 8, 2004, The Hunter College Senate voted to create a Select Committee on Academic Freedom. [ ... ] [The Committee - hereafter CAF] convened early in the spring 2005, and met twelve times through December 2005. To accomplish its mission, the Committee reviewed the history and definitions of academic freedom and drafted a "Call to the Hunter College Community" ... that asked people to visit or write the committee to give testimony on their perceptions of problems related to academic freedom at the college.

Full confidentiality was guaranteed, and the committee has done all in its powers to uphold that trust. The report that follows offers a summary of general patterns discovered, but includes no details that might reveal the name or circumstances of anyone who has come before the committee or submitted written testimony. To date, the committee has heard testimony from 27 people, of whom 21 were tenured faculty, about 5% of the tenured faculty in the college. Several other faculty and staff discussed particular situations with a subcommittee of the whole, or with an individual committee member, and several offered telephone testimony. About a dozen untenured faculty members told committee members that they chose not to meet with the committee to discuss their concerns for fear of retaliation. The committee also conferred with people outside the college and the university who had special expertise in the area of academic freedom. CAF invited members of the present Hunter administration to meet with us but this invitation has not thus far been accepted. The CAF hopes that when this initial report is issued, open and constructive conversations with administrators and other members of the Hunter College community will begin to take place.

In a recent message, CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein reiterated the importance of academic freedom and the necessity of vigilance, a timely justification for the work of the CAF: The principle of academic freedom is so essential to colleges and universities that it could be said to be part of the genetic code of higher education institutions. Indeed, it is a self-evident truth of a university's constitution. [Message from the Chancellor on Academic Freedom, 10/11/2005 (Appendix B).]

Findings

The CAF is mindful that its report is based on accounts from individuals. As the committee did not have investigatory powers, and as all who testified were guaranteed confidentiality, it was unable to verify all accounts or hear different perspectives on the reported incidents. The committee was established with the limited charge of ascertaining trends in possible violations of academic freedom, and not as a judicial body that would have the power to verify evidence or make judgments on individual cases. The Committee is also aware that it heard from only those individuals who chose to step forward and that others may have different perceptions. Finally, the necessity of protecting the confidentiality of those who testified prevents CAF from reporting the specific details that most concerned it.

Despite these limitations, the Committee noted patterns of problems that emerged from the testimony of different individuals in different situations. Even in the absence of full investigative powers, the committee found these patterns particularly disturbing. CAF also notes that while it could not determine whether every reported allegation was true, even the perception of limitations on academic freedom has a profound effect on an institution and it was clear that many individuals perceived such problems.

With these caveats, we present five major findings.

No reports of direct interferences of any faculty member's classroom teaching. The CAF is pleased to report that we did not hear any allegations that individual faculty members were pressured to make changes in the content or form of their classroom teaching.

Problems in curriculum, teaching and research. Several people reported that they perceived administrative pressure to offer or not offer certain courses based not on student need or academic criteria but administrative preference. Others reported that senior administrators sought to modify the academic direction of a department without full consultation with the faculty. Hunter and CUNY governance documents clearly mandate that faculty have authority on curricular issues. In another area, some testified about incidents in which Hunter's Institutional Review Board interfered with faculty research in ways that appeared to exceed the IRB's jurisdiction and others reported that senior administrators told them they could not pursue certain research opportunities for administrative reasons.

Problems in hiring, promotion and tenure. Several faculty provided testimony on their perceptions that Department Chairs and P&B committees were pressured to make or reverse decisions on hiring, promotion, tenure and in the election of departmental leaders. In some cases, testifiers reported that in their view these administrative efforts were not based on the criteria in the various governance documents. A few reported what they described as administrators making private - and in their view inaccurate - allegations against individual faculty members in an effort to convince others to vote against these individuals. In some cases, faculty stated the administration played an inappropriate role in hiring decisions. If this is true, this violates the By-Laws of the Trustees of the City University of New York, Sections 8.9b and 8.14, and the Charter for a Governance of Hunter College, Article XI, Section 4.

Disrespect for governance structures. Individuals described instances in which members of the administration had by-passed or sought to by-pass academic procedures for search committees, student grading and other matters; failed to provide requested information to other governance bodies; and disparaged Hunter's academic structures and governance bodies. Several individuals reported that their conclusions from these incidents were that some administrators viewed existing governance structures as obstacles to overcome.

Perceptions of climate of fear. The most consistent - and disturbing - finding, heard from numerous testifiers discussing very different issues, was a perception that dissent could lead to retaliation. Many individuals described a climate of fear and the perception that the safest course at Hunter was "to keep your head down." [ ... ]

Whatever the particular facts of the many instances described to our Committee, it is apparent both from the testimony and the personal experiences of Committee members that the perception of a climate of fear has led a significant portion of Hunter faculty, staff and administrators to withdraw, at least in part, from public discussions about some of the most significant issues facing the College. In the Committee's estimation, this would be a devastating and unaffordable loss to any academic community.

Hunter College faces serious external and internal challenges - a long term trend in diminished support from New York State, ongoing increases in student tuition, increased pressure to raise more money from private sources, the need to find new space, a retention rate that all agree needs improvement, and increasing competition from other public and private universities, to name a few. Only a unified college community can face these challenges and determine how best to use the resources we have to maintain our mission and achieve excellence. The perception that faculty cannot freely speak out on important institutional and academic issues without fear of administrative reprisals or disapproval compromises Hunter's ability to achieve our common goals.

Recommendations

All members of the Hunter community have a responsibility to promote academic freedom. In order to remedy the problems that have been described to us, CAF makes the following recommendations.

The Hunter College Administration and the College's governing bodies should acknowledge the dimensions of the problem of the perception of a climate of fear and engage in college-wide discussions to address and remediate this problem. The CAF believes that only a public discussion of these issues can lead to mutually satisfactory improvements.

Maintaining and expanding academic freedom, creating an environment in which all members of the academic community feel welcome to participate, and fostering respect for a college's governance bodies are hallmarks of positive academic leadership. All administrators should provide guidance and feedback on these issues to those whom they supervise.

In spite of the limits of our inquiry, the CAF is profoundly disturbed that the climate of fear described to us burdens the college with conflicts that fester and sap energy. We encourage the Senate, the Administration and the wider academic community to use existing channels of communication and governance structures to better address these issues.

The AAUP is currently conducting an inquiry at CUNY, including Hunter College, and we recommend that the Senate encourage the entire Hunter community to cooperate with this effort.